Posted - 03/20/2013 : 14:43:44 What happened to all the fans who said they would never go see another NHL game, or purchase any team merchandise?

I haven't bothered to check the stats (I'm someone will), but it appears that fans have come back!

Is it possible that the people making the most noise ("I'm never going to see another game," etc.) were never paying fans in the first place?

I know a lot of season ticket holders, and I never heard of anyone who cancelled their tickets. But I live in a Canadian market, so maybe it's different in the states? (Or some parts of the states to be fair.)

And for those fans who said they would come back, but not buy any merchandise, you only need to look at the number of hockey fans who purchased team jerseys in St. Patrick's Day green.

There were hundreds of fans decked out in green Oilers jerseys at the Edmonton - Nashville game on Sunday March 17th. And when watching the Boston - Pittsburgh game earlier that day, it appeared to be the same.

Some of the green "jerseys' were t-shirts, but there were numerous fans wearing $150.00 green Oiler jerseys, for which I suspect they would only wear once a year, and on St. Patrick's Day?

Wow – that's supporting the team, or maybe they're just big fans of St. Paddy's Day?

21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Alex116

Posted - 03/27/2013 : 10:32:29

quote:Originally posted by Guest4178As for your examples of non-gate revenues (rinkboard advertising, logos on the ice), you are kidding yourself if you think companies are paying for this without consideration for fans in the seats. Sure, they're trying to reach a TV audience, but they also expect to reach the roughly 1 million people who watch the games live each season, and in each rink.

This might be the understatement of the year IMO. I have to say, i pay WAY more attention to the rinkboard and in house advertising when i'm in attendance than i EVER do while watching on TV. This is because there's stoppages in play, commercial breaks, intermissions, etc where during the downtime, you tend to "look around". While i watch on TV, i rarely even notice that sort of stuff, and prefer to use this down time (commercials, intermission, etc) to fetch another cold one, tend to my T-Bone on the grill, etc.

Guest4178

Posted - 03/27/2013 : 10:25:42 I've never argued that the non-gate revenues are insignificant, or that people who watch NHL games on TV do not contribute to league revenues.

But if you think only 1/3 of league revenues are gate driven, I disagree. I've provided you with plenty of facts, and extrapolations which appear to prove my point. When asked to prove your point (i.e. your claim that only 3-5 teams derive ancillary revenues like concessions, parking, etc.), you don't do so, but take on the tactic of saying "show me otherwise."

As for your examples of non-gate revenues (rinkboard advertising, logos on the ice), you are kidding yourself if you think companies are paying for this without consideration for fans in the seats. Sure, they're trying to reach a TV audience, but they also expect to reach the roughly 1 million people who watch the games live each season, and in each rink.

Once again, when you add up the numbers – average ticket price, average number of fans, number of home games, playoffs, etc. – live fans provide around $2 billion to the league's overall revenues.

And to be clear, I will repeat what I stated earlier. "Other revenues" (revenues not generated by live fans) are a significant contributor to overall league revenues, but it's the live fans who pay most of the freight!"

You think it's the other way around – I don't. That's the disagreeing point. I'm not arguing about what constitutes non-gate revenues (TV, advertising, etc.), or that TV viewers don't contribute, but my point is who contributes more.

If you can show me how "other revenues" (non-gate, but TV, advertising, etc.) add up to the difference between $3.2 billion and what you claim are total gate receipts of $1.2 billion (which you read somewhere, without running the numbers, or checking to see if this number included all gate revenues), I would be very interested to see your accounting of this $2 billion.

I gave you mine, and to this point, it has not been refuted.

But I'm a humble guy. Maybe I have the average ticket price wrong, or maybe I have the average number of fans wrong, or maybe there are less than 41 home games in a regular season, and maybe playoff attendance and suite attendance numbers are considered "advertising," and not bums in the seats?

Beans15

Posted - 03/27/2013 : 07:44:48 HOLY CRAP!! How many times does a guy have to say it!!

Advertising is not only TV revenues!! Geez.

For example, Tim Horton's pay the Edmonton Oilers directly for having their company logo painted into the ice. The Oilers charge teams for this based on TV viewer ship. Same thing for every one of those advertisements on the boards, many of them changing through the game.

And the $1.2 billion from the article is listed at total gate revenue. I assume that to mean all revenues from all ticket sales. If you want to arbitratily state otherwise, cool.

My point from the begining, which no one has proven otherwise, is that the people who are claiming to not support the NHL by not going to games but still watching games on TV or online or anywhere else there is advertising are supporting the NHL as much as those people going to games.

Guest4178

Posted - 03/26/2013 : 14:36:50 Does this reported $1.2 billion included revenue from suite rentals, exhibition games and playoff games?

I suspect not, so you have to add another $500-$600 million to this figure.

And not to belabour a point, every team (not some or most) earns ancillary revenues from fans who go to game on some or all of the following: concessions, parking, merchandise, programs, etc.

And whether a teams sells or gives away a program, these teams sell advertising in these programs directed to live fans, not a TV audience.

As for TV/media/advertising revenues, do you think this adds up to $2 billion a season?

The league's most significant TV deal is their 10 year $200 million year deal with NBC. The next biggest TV deal for the NHL is what CBC pays annually for HNIC, which is reported to be between $90 -$100 million a season. As for regional TV deals, I acknowledged that teams have regional TV/radio deals, but only a handful of NHL teams make significant money on these deals.

Separate and apart from the NBC deal (which I've already mentioned), what kind of money does Columbus, Nashville, Tampa Bay, etc., etc. make on their regional TV deals?

You can work it backwards or forwards, but it still comes up the same – live fans deliver more than half to league revenues. Here's one last way to look at it:

According to most recent reports, the average ticket price is $61.00, and this does NOT include revenues from suite rentals, nor any amount of money on concessions, etc.

Multiply this by the average number of fans (17,652 by most recent reports), and multiply this by the number of home games in the regular season (41 in a full season), and then by 30 (teams), and this adds up to $1.32 billion.

Now add revenues from exhibition games ($100 million), and playoff revenues of around $250 million (teams increase their ticket prices dramatically per playoff round), then add suite rental revenues of $250 million (conservative estimate), and you're sitting around $2 billion.

No hot dogs, no popcorn, no parking, and no beer revenues. Just revenues from bums in seats.

I've provided my math, but if someone wants to show me the advertising marketing revenues by line item (I've already given you a head start with the NBC and CBC deals), I would be very interested to see how this adds up!

Beans15

Posted - 03/26/2013 : 13:00:18 Well I guess we will have to figure out who we will believe. Here is a report that shows the gate revenue for the entire NHL is $1.2 billion. About 1/3 of their total revenue.

The problem with your $200 million NBC comment is that doesn't include TSN, CBC, or local TV deals. Secondly, it doesn't include advertising dollars coming directly from companies to the NHL team.

You can agree to disagree all you want. Check the facts and show me more than 3-5 teams who own their building.

Bottom line, if $1.2 billion is coming from the gate nearly $2 billion is coming from other places. That means the NHL makes 2/3 of their money from OTHER THAN gate revenues. That was my entire point. Anyone thinking they are showing the NHL financially by not going to games is not having the impact they think they are. Again, that being my original point.

Guest4178

Posted - 03/26/2013 : 12:51:59 Here's an interesting article (from TSN.com) which describes that gates revenues are just less than 2/3 of total league revenues:

The article is a few years old, but I don't think things have changed that dramatically.

Once again, you have to look at all factors. Suite sales revenues are not in the average ticket price numbers in the "Fan Cost Index Report," and these revenues are considerable. (For whatever portion is deemed to be hockey, not basketball, concert events, etc.)

If you take a market like Edmonton, they derive $9-10 million a year from suite rentals (67 suites), and this adds to the numbers already provided for gate revenues.

In my original presentation of $1.92 billion, I did not include these revenues, which are probably $300 million league-wide.

And I didn't include 4 exhibition games for every team, for which most teams require their season ticket holders to purchase.

So add another $100 million for exhibition games.

Quite frankly, I do not believe that only 3-5 teams make money from concessions, parking, etc.

Let me suggest another way to look at the "other revenues" numbers. Start with the $200 million a year NBC deal, and show me figures for advertising/marketing revenues generated which make up for the gap between what live fans spend/pay, and what TV viewers "pay."

Beans15

Posted - 03/26/2013 : 12:31:02 Umm, did Beans get owned??

Take a look at that fan cost index again and ask yourself how much of that money goes to the NHL. There are only 3-5 teams in the NHL that own their own stadiums. That means 90% of the NHL do not get to keep anything other than tickets. Parking, food, beer, etc all goes to the building owner in most cases. Some teams even have to pay part of their ticket revenue to the building owners.

Anyone who things the NHL gets 100% of the gate money is not considering facts.

The other fact that posters are missing is that it's not direct TV money, it's advertising money. How much do you think Tim Horton's or Ford pays a team to have their company logo painted into the ice?? You are watching the game on TV which means the team can charge more to Tim Horton's for that logo on the ice.

But I guess I just got owned.

Guest8468

Posted - 03/25/2013 : 13:00:42 Looks like Beans got owned pretty hard here.... NHL is a gate-driven league, I thought everyone knew this. NBA/NFL can make these claims, but not the NHL. At least not yet.

But to be clear, it's the live fans who contribute the most to the NHL's revenues.

If you look at the most recent "Fan Cost Index" report, the average ticket price is $61.01, and the average premium ticket price is $145.33.

But live fans spend more than the ticket price when going to games, which includes concessions, merchandise, parking, etc. (Most teams earn these revenues.) And that's what the "Fan Cost Index" shows. The average cost for a family of four to go to an NHL game is $354.82. (Or $88.70 per person.)

Using the most recent attendance numbers (17,652), this works out to $1.92 billion.

And let's not forget that paying fans (those who go to the games) also contribute to rink board advertising, building signage, maybe not to the extent of TV viewing fans, but to some extent. (Advertisers want to reach the live viewers too.)

So if you consider these facts, "live" fans contribute the most to team revenues (at least 60%).

As for TV revenues, the $2 billion 10-year deal is significant, but it breaks down to about $6.7 million a year for each team, not quite enough to pay the highest player on most teams.

And while some teams have lucrative regional TV (and radio) deals (i.e. Leafs, Canadiens, Rangers, etc.), these same teams have the highest ticket prices.

Once again, "other revenues" (revenues not generated by live fans) are a significant contributor to overall league revenues, but it's the live fans who pay most of the freight!

For those interested, here is the most recent "Fan Cost Index Report" for the NHL:

Posted - 03/25/2013 : 12:17:10 Again, with all due respect, anyone that thinks they are watching hockey in any form and not supporting the NHL financially is kidding themselves. Any rink advertisement, product sponsorship painted into the ice, and even banner ads on websites provide financial support to the NHL.

Finally, based on the information readily found on the internet regarding NHL attendance and the ticket prices it is very easy to see the numbers involved. The NHL stated revenues in the range of $3 billion. Using average ticket price and total attendance it takes about 5 minutes to figure out the revenue generated from the gate is just a shade over $1 billion.

So where does the rest of the money come from??? Merch and advertising/TV. Every time you turn on a hockey game, hockey highlight, magazine, newspaper, etc you are putting as much money into the pockets of the NHL as the people going to hockey games.

I'm not making this up. The numbers are all there for anyone to look at.

slozo

Posted - 03/25/2013 : 07:10:16 I'd have to chime in the same as the last poster.

I watch some hockey when I can squeeze it in . . . but it's all streamed off the net. NHL gets zero revenue from that (I am not going to explain further, you get the point). CBC Sat night streams the game live, I watch for free . . . again, no revenue. I don't think the advertiser money to the NHL point is valid at all, it would continue being basically the same amount unless the league folds, which would be ridiculous. And all they advertise anyways is beer I would never drink, shaving gel and razor equipment I don't use, and some other crap that is so forgettable I can't recall it.

For me, the two big hits that the NHL can sustain are merchandise (it's #1, and the easiest to forgo frankly), and the ticket/gate. And both I have been steadfastly avoiding and will continue to for the forseeable future.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Guest9053

Posted - 03/25/2013 : 05:05:03 Watching hockey on TV does nothing for their numbers. I don't have a Nielsen box. I also don't watch any ads (although I can say that for any TV show...)

That means that, as far as the NHL knows, I am fully gone. They don't get a penny. Their advertisers don't get a penny more than they would if they didn't invest in an ad spot during a game either.

If enough people did the same, they'd see a drop in their gate revenue and also a loss, or at least reduction, of a few companies' sponsorships. Then they'd feel it and start to respect their fanbase instead of treating us like sheep with big wallets.

Guest0266

Posted - 03/24/2013 : 13:44:27 So anyone who is answering to polling should just say they don't turn hockey on at home, and only watch the local kids right now. Yes, I'm recommending a big fat lie to answer to the issue, and with the AdMan checking us out. I suppose cable co's can track such things with tech... so this means you'll have to go to a buddies to watch the game.

Do the math, if four guys get together to watch, it means a 75% drop in tv's tuned in. That's a very big number! Someone will have to answer.

Ok you've got yer matching orders, now march!March... right through to June. Spending time with friends to watch the game will create new and strengthen existing community bonds. You will be creating a better world!

Thanks to you then, for doing your part to help us all afford to take our kids out for a night of pro hockey. Just think, if our kids can't get to see live hockey games, how will appreciation and love for the game be maintained? Our sport will die a slow death, and even the millionaires won't be able to save it.

Then we'd have to find another blood lust to participate in. Who knows where that would lead, and then even our streets wont be safe. So make your neighbourhood safer and save society from the disintegration that would develop if pro hockey folds.

So do the right thing.Just say no to pollsters! Lee's Long Shots (the Stingers pool)

Guest4377

Posted - 03/22/2013 : 17:50:15 With all due respect, the money the NHL gets from advertising does not exceed gate receipts. This is the NHL, not the NFL.

When you add up revenues teams get from live fans (those who go to the games), you have to include gate receipts, suite sales/leases, concessions, parking, etc., all which add up to more than the revenues the NHL generates from TV viewers.

And one must recognize that live fans (season ticket holders, etc.) significantly contribute to the revenues generated by advertising and TV rights, etc. For example, season ticket holders and casual seat buyers are very likely to watch their team on the road (on TV), so this should be considered too. (And they're obviously not boycotting hockey.)

But I get the point. People who comment that they won't go to games, but still watch hockey on TV, are not really boycotting hockey. They're still watching hockey, and contributing to team/league revenues.

Beans15

Posted - 03/22/2013 : 11:40:16 All due respect guest, the money the NHL gets from advertising is significantly higher than what most teams pull in from the gates. You not spending money at a game is far less impactful than the sponsorships and direct TV money paid.

If people were serious about hitting the NHL where it hurts they wouldn't want hockey on TV. That would mean sponsors who pay for TV spots wouldn't have to pay as much based on lower viewership and therefore the money going to the NHL from TV revenues would drop.

That is why the NHL doesn't care or feel the pain of the lockouts. They get all sorts of fans saying they won't go to games or spend their money but they will still watch games on TV. The NHL gets paid both ways.

Personally, I vowed not to give them a penny for twice as long as the lockout ended. That means roughly until Xmas of this year. Still holding strong.

Doesn't mean I won't watch any games on TV though. Also doesn't mean I wouldn't go if someone offered me free tickets

Alex116

Posted - 03/21/2013 : 20:28:03

quote:Originally posted by Guest4209

I'm one of those fans who said I wouldn't pay a dime to watch a game.

But my kid just finished his hockey season and for the first time ever asked if we can watch a "big" hockey game. The plan was to watch out to an OHL game but, well they are out of the playoffs. So to keep mny word to my kid, I have to grudgingly fork money over to watch a NHL hockey game instead.

I'm breaking my promise to myself to keep my promise with my kid.

Clearly this doesn't count! It's all about the kids!!!

Guest4209

Posted - 03/21/2013 : 17:58:35 I'm one of those fans who said I wouldn't pay a dime to watch a game.

But my kid just finished his hockey season and for the first time ever asked if we can watch a "big" hockey game. The plan was to watch out to an OHL game but, well they are out of the playoffs. So to keep mny word to my kid, I have to grudgingly fork money over to watch a NHL hockey game instead.

I'm breaking my promise to myself to keep my promise with my kid.

Alex116

Posted - 03/21/2013 : 17:08:41 Well, i don't fit that category but i'll admit to something. I said i wouldn't spend a nickel going to a game (unless i got a free ticket and bought some beers) as i normally don't (get to 4-5 games per year through clients) but i actually did this season! I bought tix to the early season game vs the Oilers only cuz i new a guy who was selling some at cost and a buddy who loves the Oilers wanted to go.

My stance beforehand though was that not many will hold a grudge for long, and those who do, or stand by their statements like Slozo is doing, good for you! However, unless you can convince millions of others to do the same, the only thing you're affecting really is your own satisfaction/stubborness/concience or whatever you wanna call it. Let's face it, there's prob actually thousands out there who stuck to their word, but it doesn't appear to be having much of an effect on the NHL!!!

Guest4178

Posted - 03/21/2013 : 08:57:50 I agree Slozo – most people talk a big game, but lots of times, they don't back it up.

When my friends do this, I call the out on it, give them the gears so to speak. ("So you won $500 on some sports bets last week. What about the previous four weeks? You're actually down!")

And that's what I'm doing here. While there are a few guys like you out there (who have stayed true to their "word"), the vast majority of hockey fans are back like there was never a lockout.

It would be great to hear from someone who would just honestly say "you know what, I hate the lockout(s), I think the owners are too greedy, I think the players make too much money, the game needs fixing, etc., but no matter what they do, I love the game too much, and I will keep watching, and keep coming back no matter what!"

For the most part, what we say to our buds about our girlfriends/wives; how we spend our money; how much tv we watch; how much beer we can drink; how much money we won on betting; and, what we will do after a hockey lockout . . . are simply fabrications of reality.

We get emotional about the things we love, and once you get emotional, you often say things you don't really mean. And sometimes, you even truly believe it at the time. And later conveniently forget it or try to change history when someone else calls you on it.

Myself,not to sound like too much of a sanctimonious bastard, but I have stayed true to my word - no money spent on my Leafs so far. In fact, the guy I usually get tickets from, I told him before the season started to take me off his list period. AND, I was already offered to get Leaf tickets for my upcoming birthday, and I said no - I don't want my friends spending money when I won't.